James Oberstar

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), whose district was tragically the site of a pipeline tragedy. (Mr. LARSEN of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes. Today, we are finally going to be able to vote on pipeline safety legislation worthy of the name. It is regrettable it has taken us 3 years to get here, but the bill before the House is a good bill. It is the result of long, intense, constructive negotiations among the parties to this process, including our Republican leadership on our committee, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), and his staff, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and his staff, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and his staff, represented here today by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher). This is a compromise in the best sense of that word. We have all yielded some and accepted some. It is one that will promote pipeline safety and legislation that should be widely supported. We were very far apart at the outset of this process. I had serious reservations about the bill, H.R. 3609, as introduced, because I believed very strongly that the introduced bill failed to respond adequately to a number of important safety concerns, many of which date back to the mid-1980s when I chaired the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and held hearings on pipeline safety in the aftermath of several tragedies throughout the United States, including one very serious fatal pipeline blast in Minnesota that killed people in the northern suburbs of the Twin Cities. The introduced bill, in my view, did little to ensure that pipeline employees with safety responsibilities would be qualified or that they would get the necessary training. It did not have funding for assistance to groups of concerned citizens who had played an important role in pipeline safety, something I have come to appreciate over the years, and unprecedented authority for the Department of Transportation to terminate jurisdiction of agencies with environmental responsibilities for pipelines. Those were widely discussed issues and widely reported in news reports on this legislation. I think that the bill we have before us now adequately addresses those problems, and I can support this legislation in partnership with the gentleman from Alaska and the gentleman from Louisiana and the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Virginia. The bill requires that all natural gas transmission pipelines serving high-consequence areas be inspected within 10 years and reinspected no later than every 7 years thereafter. It requires pipeline operators to provide training to ensure that individuals have the necessary knowledge and skills to do their tasks in a safe manner. It makes clear that it is not enough to rely on observing an employee's on-the-job performance to determine if he or she is qualified. I have been to pipeline operational facilities to observe these circumstances firsthand. I am quite convinced that the language we have now is going to address that issue. The bill includes a pilot program to determine whether persons operating computer-based systems for controlling pipelines should be certified. It raises civil penalties for violations from $25,000 to $100,000, and the maximum civil penalty from $500,000 to $1 million. The bill allows the Secretary of Transportation to ask the Attorney General to bring civil actions in Federal District Court to enforce pipeline safety regulations. It has a program of grants for local organizations to obtain technical assistance to participate effectively in pipeline safety proceedings and limitations on those groups against lobbying, against political activities with these funds. The bill requires an interagency committee to coordinate environmental reviews, chaired by the chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality and consisting of Federal environmental permitting agencies to develop a memorandum of understanding to coordinate environmental reviews for pipeline repair projects. It ensures that this coordination process will respect existing environmental laws. It will address the appropriate roles of the permitting agencies and respect those roles. The bill requires the affected agencies to reach union agreement on the memorandum, and specifically states that the provision does not preempt any Federal, State, or local environmental law. That is a critical issue. It has taken a long time to get to that point. The fact that we have reached agreement on that issue is significant in moving this legislation forward. For that, I express my great appreciation to the chairman of our committee, the gentleman from Alaska; and to the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Louisiana; and also the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member on that committee. Two years ago, Mr. Speaker, we defeated a weak bill, believing that no bill was better than a weak bill. It was the right thing to do then. Today's action proves that we were right. With time, with effort, with imagination, with good will to achieve a good result, we could do better. And today we do better. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) representing the Democrats on the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I express my great admiration for the job that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) and the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations have done together, but the conference report has some extraneous provisions which the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has objected to on a bipartisan basis, including one provision that has nothing to do with fighting the war on terrorism: a rescission of $320 million of highway contract authority. That means if this stands, and apparently it will, that every State's highway program will lose interstate maintenance, national highway system funding, surface transportation program, bridge, congestion mitigation, and air quality improvement funds. California loses $31 million; Pennsylvania, $15 million; Illinois, $11 million; and Minnesota, $5.2 million. For the first time in the history of the highway programs, these States will have to return budget authority which has been apportioned to them. These cuts are over the express objections of both the House and the Senate authorizing committees. Some will argue this has no effect because the obligational authority is not reduced in fiscal year 2002, but I disagree. These rescissions will limit the States' flexibility to use their different categories of funds. When we passed TEA-21, we expected that contract authority would be greater than the annual obligation limitation. This excess contract authority has played a critical role in funding the States' need to set their own priorities for highway investments, and they have done exceedingly well with it. States will have to go through the process now of returning these funds from each of the highway categories to the Federal Highway Administration, and put more pressure on each State's highway next year if reauthorization of TEA-21 is delayed. Mr. Speaker, for those reasons I must oppose the conference report.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, it is cities, more than States, that have advanced the cause of aviation in the United States. Until 1958, there were only 7 States that provided any support financially for airport construction and development. In the 1940s, Chicago's city council looked into the crystal ball, saw the future of aviation and had the foresight to acquire orchard fields and an additional 7,000 acres to build this treasure of an airport, O'Hare, that was named for a World War II hero. Similarly, LaGuardia was the brainchild of Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia, who sought to capitalize on the great success of Newark Airport, and built what was then a treasure on the East Coast. And the same with Atlanta. Hartsfield Airport was the vision of Alderman and Mayor William Hartsfield. So we are now dealing with the need to look into the future of aviation in the United States. When traffic backs up at O'Hare, it backs up all the way around the world. Delays at O'Hare affect traffic as far away as Frankfurt, in Europe, and Tokyo on the Pacific Rim. This legislation, and I have spent a great deal of time looking at the airport runway reconfiguration, will allow operations of all weather conditions, simultaneous operations. It will make possible simultaneous operations under all but the very worst zero visibility conditions, and that would be a huge improvement over the existing situation at O'Hare. There have been allegations about the constitutionality of this legislative proposal. Last week, during debate, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) made references to constitutional issues in a letter written by Professor Ronald Rotunda of the University of Illinois College of Law. Well, we have got other experts and other professors who have also reviewed this letter. We talked to Professor Thomas Merrill, the John Paul Stephens Professor of Law at Northwestern University, to get his opinion, which concludes as follows: ``This legislation is squarely within the power delegated to Congress under the commerce clause and relies on familiar precepts of preemption. It presents no substantial issue under the anti-commandeering principle of U.S. v. New York.'' Mr. Speaker, I am submitting herewith for the Record the memorandum provided by Professor Merrill, and the letter of agreement between the Governor of Illinois and the Mayor of the City of Chicago, testifying that they have reached an agreement and both do strongly support this legislation. State of Illinois, City of Chicago, July 22, 2002. Dear Member of Congress: We want to unequivocally state our strong support for Representative Bill Lipinski and Mark Kirk's legislation, H.R. 3479, the National Aviation Capacity Expansion Act of 2002, which is expected to be on the House Calendar this week. This legislation is crucial to the agreement that we, as Governor of Illinois and Mayor of Chicago, reached to end decades of debate over the future of airports in the Chicago area. That debate has choked off necessary improvements to airport capacity in the region, and led to display and congestion that have negatively affected the economy of the region, and rippled through the national aviation system. It is time to end that debate and move forward. Passage of this legislation is necessary for us to carry out this agreement, which will lead to reconfiguration of the runway system at O'Hare, the reduction of delays, and the creation of almost 200,000 new jobs in Illinois. It will help improve the operations of the entire system, reducing delays around the nation. The agreement also includes going ahead with work on the development of a new airport in the southern suburbs of Chicago, which has been a great importance to not only the State of Illinois, but to many members of the Illinois delegation. Passage of this legislation is the best course of action to help develop a third regional airport in the southern suburbs. Let us be clear: failure to pass this legislation will return us to the political gridlock over airport issues in the Chicago region that may take decades more to resolve. A huge economic boost to the State of Illinois, to the Midwest and to the entire nation will be lost. We both strongly urge your favorable vote on H.R. 3479. Thank you. George H. Ryan, Governor. Richard M. Daley, Mayor.

Mr. OBERSTAR. That is not my understanding. All that I know who requested the hearing were accommodated. I am not aware of such. But at any rate, I have only limited time and perhaps the gentleman can discuss this on his time with the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski).

Mr. OBERSTAR. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I believe there were two hearings

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I rise in support of the National Aviation Capacity Expansion Act of 2002, and I do so with greatest respect and admiration for the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) who has labored mightily to bring together the State of Illinois, the City of Chicago, and a wide range of interests in the House to support this initiative. It is unfortunate that we have to do this by legislation, but it is also unfortunate that historically the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois have not been able to work together constructively, with oftentimes the Governor's office countermanding an agreement worked out between the Mayor and the Governor, as Mayor Daley testified to so specifically in our committee hearings last year and early this year. I just want to point out that we are not talking about an ordinary airport. This is the premier airport in the United States. This is a treasure for all of world aviation. There is no question that we need to address the needs of O'Hare; that we, if necessary, as we do in this legislation, in effect, codify an agreement between the Mayor and the State of Illinois.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Living Well with Fatal Chronic Illness Act of 2002,'' a bill to build the capacity to meet the challenge of growing numbers of people living with serious chronic illness for some time before death. I am joined in introducing this bill by my colleagues Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Representative Martin Frost, Representative Michael McNulty, and Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton. The early ideas for this legislative initiative came from conversations around the dinner table with my wife, Jean. We have both lost spouses, who succumbed at an unusually early age to cancer, and we have tended to disabled and frail parents. Many citizens have been personally touched by the experience of caring for disabled and frail parents or for spouses and children as they lived out their final days. My experience in these difficult situations has been that our health care system is a patchwork quilt of mismatched services that carry with them substantial expense. So, the challenges faced by those nearing the end of life, as well as by those caring for loved ones, are particularly meaningful to me. Just in the last half-century, the way that most Americans come to the end of life has changed dramatically. Today, most people live for many months with a serious chronic illness before they die. In fact, statistics show that, on average, Americans will be unable to care for themselves for the last two years of their lives. However, the services that our health care system makes readily available were designed to cope with short-term threats, such as accidental injuries and heart attacks. Our nation's health care system has not been adapted to meet the needs of people facing the final phase of life or the many challenges faced by their caregivers. Many of the shortcomings in the health care system related to care at the end of life arise from inherent shortcomings in federal policy. Unfortunately, we have been slow to see that these lapses are not just personal calamities and challenges, but rather, are built into federal policy. For example, while Medicare coverage makes operations and emergency services readily available to the elderly, services more appropriate for serious disability and dying are not easily found. Medicare, Medicaid, and Veteran's coverage do not provide for continuity in care, advance care planning, family support, or symptom relief for long-term fatal illnesses. Further, end of life care uses a large portion of funding allocated to health care services. Those last few years of life are tremendously expensive, with the last year alone using 28 percent of the overall Medicare budget. It is estimated that half of Medicare cost, and even more of Medicaid for the elderly and Veteran's health care, go toward care of those who are very sick and will die, rather than get well. Although taxpayers spend money on end of life care, they do not get reliability and quality from that care. And this is a problem that will only increase in the coming years. The numbers of people facing serious illness and death will double within a quarter century, as the Baby Boomer generation reaches old age. Our nation must not only arrange and pay for services that can support the unprecedented number of people who will need care, but we must also learn how to support family caregivers. Facts show that a family member will spend nearly as many years, seventeen, caring for an elderly parent, as raising children, eighteen years. Further, a family caregiver can expect to lose more than one-half million dollars in net worth, (from having a lower pension, more time not covered by health insurance, and lost wages.) The ``Living Well with Fatal Chronic Illness Act of 2002'' will meet the challenges faced by a growing number of people who must live with serious chronic illness for some time before death. This comprehensive legislation addresses four key initiatives--two affect caregivers, two points relate to improving end of life care. First, we establish an early Medicare buy-in program for otherwise uninsured caregivers aged 55 to 65. This provision would guarantee that those caregivers approaching Medicare age would not have to go without health insurance themselves when they are forced to leave work to care for a family member. For example, a 60-year-old woman who leaves her job to take care of her 85-year-old mother who has Alzheimer's disease often not only loses her income and social role, but also her employer-sponsored health insurance. Age and pre-existing conditions make it unlikely that the daughter could purchase health insurance as an individual, so she may have to jeopardize her own medical care for that of her mother. By enabling family caregivers aged 55 or older to buy into Medicare at community rates, with no penalty for pre-existing conditions, we recognize the important contributions made by caregivers and support their valuable work in useful ways. Second, the legislation proposes a $3,000 per year tax credit for the primary caregiver of a low-income individual who has long-term care needs. This is important, because the United States is the only developed nation that does not support family caregivers. There is no federal government program to help improve skills, provide respite; indeed, we do not generally demonstrate that we honor their love and loyalty. The tax credit we propose is admittedly not enough to pay for the financial sacrifices of caregivers who provide long-term care, but it will demonstrate support and respect for the significant commitment and contributions made by those who help loved ones to live well despite serious illness. We have been so focused on learning how to prevent and cure diseases that we have all but abandoned interest in what occurs as those possibilities run out. Most people now die of long-term irreversible conditions like dementia, frailty, heart failure, emphysema, cancer, and stroke; yet there is very little reliable evidence about serious illness and the end of life. This legislation will help provide guidance that the medical community needs to respond more effectively to unique end of life challenges. Third, the bill authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to establish research, demonstration, and education programs to improve the quality of end-of-life care across multiple federal agencies. Fourth, the bill authorizes the Department of Veterans Affairs to develop and implement programs to improve the delivery of appropriate health and support services for patients with fatal chronic illness. The Veterans Health Care System has been a leader in end of life care delivery and innovation, especially in advance care planning and pain management. This bill aims to support continued excellence through enhanced education and service delivery for this important care system that now serves so many disabled and elderly veterans. Our nation will face major challenges in the next quarter century as baby boomers approach old age. We must ensure that people suffering from fatal chronic illnesses live out their lives in a dignified, comfortable, and meaningful way, and we must support and honor the invaluable work of caregivers.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding such an abundance of time to me. I especially want to compliment the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for the hours and weeks of time he has personally dedicated to mediating between the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois, and working to bring us the legislation that is before the House today. Mr. Speaker, when President John F. Kennedy dedicated O'Hare Airport in 1963, he said, ``There is no other airport in the world that serves so many people and so many airplanes. This is an extraordinary airport. It could be classed as one of the wonders of the world.'' Mr. Speaker, the pulse of national and international air travel remains dependent on O'Hare today, as it did when opened in 1963; but few would suggest that today it is that wonder of the world. It is simply failing to meet the capacity demands put on this airport by the extraordinary increase in air travel throughout world, as well as throughout our own Nation. Delays at O'Hare ricochet around the world. They reverberate as far away as Frankfurt, Germany; London's Heathrow Airport; Tokyo's Narita Airport; and elsewhere around the United States. A weather delay in Chicago means business travelers inbound from the European continent or the Pacific Rim are delayed, either at their point of origin or en route. This airport is truly an extraordinary facility in the world of aviation. It is our Nation's premier airport. It is the crown jewel of aviation in the United States, but it cannot continue to serve that role in its current configuration. When I met with the mayor and the staff, the professional staff of the O'Hare International Airport operation over 1\1/2\ years ago to discuss their plans for expansion, I was greatly impressed with the proposals for reconfiguring this airport that would result in a 4,300- foot separation between two groups of parallel runways, the addition of an entirely new runway, and for operational improvements that would reduce reductions in operations by 95 percent in bad weather, and overall reduce delays by almost 80 percent. That is an extraordinary improvement in aviation service and will result in untold benefits, benefits we can only estimate today, but that will run into the billions of dollars over the years and more than justify the cost of the investments needed to make these improvements. There has been a good deal of discussion throughout the proposal when it was first surfaced over a year ago about whose responsibility it is to build this airport and what should be the role of the State. There has been, let us be candid about it, a great deal of conflict between the city and the State, not only on O'Hare Airport, but on, as Mayor Daley testified at our committee hearings, on such matters as transit improvements, on highway improvements, where the State repeatedly has vetoed City of Chicago plans to expand, improve, and deal with its infrastructure needs. The gentleman from Illinois, working with the city and the State, attempted to resolve the complexities through the channeling process, whereby the city must channel its request for FAA approval through the State of Illinois; but over time, contrary to best hopes and expectations, that proved to be very difficult. The city and the State came up with a plan that initially I found to be unacceptable because it would be violative of national aviation policy. Over months of negotiations, the two parties, the State and the city, have come to an agreement. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski), our ranking member on the Subcommittee on Aviation, served as a midwife and attending physician, caregiver and nurturer of all good things. I think it has really come to fruition here. The National Aviation Capacity Expansion Act, H.R. 3479, will facilitate projects to enhance capacity in the Chicago area, including major expansion of Chicago O'Hare Airport, our Nation's second-busiest airport and the third-most delayed. As I noted previously, the City of Chicago, which runs the airport, has proposed development that it estimates will improve O'Hare's operations in optimal conditions by 79 percent and in less-than-optimal conditions by 95 percent, while making quantum leaps in O'Hare annual capacity. The proposal, which involves one new runway and reconfiguration of the seven existing runways, is predicted to more than double O'Hare's annual enplanements, from 31 million to 76 million, and to allow the airport to handle 1.6 million annual operations, compared with the current level of less than 1 million. Under this legislation, the State of Illinois will be preempted from using unique provisions of state law to prevent the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) from even considering the expansion and reconfiguration of O'Hare airport. The preemption provision is narrowly crafted to preempt the unique provisions of the Illinois Aeronautics Act, which for years have been used to delay any consideration of expanding O'Hare. When H.R. 3479 was introduced, I was extremely concerned with the provisions that crafted preferences or exemptions for the O'Hare and Peotone projects from: (1) the federal and state National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes, (2) the Clean Air Act, (3) and the need to compete with other airports, on a merit basis, for the limited Airport Improvement Program (AIP) funding available. The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, however, accepted an amendment offered by Mr. Lipinski that makes it clear that O'Hare- related projects will not receive any preference in seeking funds from the Airport Improvement Program. The amendment only allows the City of Chicago to submit to the FAA a request for AIP funds for the planning and construction of O'Hare airport, without the prior approval of the State of Illinois. FAA will use its best professional judgment to determine whether the projects should be funded under the criteria used to evaluate applications for AIP grants. The bill makes it clear that any application submitted by the City of Chicago for the expansion of O'Hare must be evaluated under all applicable federal laws and regulations, including the federal NEPA process. In addition, it requires that proposals for the construction or expansion of Peotone, Gary/Chicago, and Greater Rockford airports should be evaluated on the same basis as any other airport project. The bill also addresses my main concern with the Clean Air Act provision in the introduced bill. I believed that under the introduced bill, the people of Illinois would lose the right to decide which emissions should be curtailed to meet the Clean Air Act's requirements. The reported bill requires the State to follow its usual and customary practices for accounting for, and regulating emissions associated with, airport activities. The bill prevents the State from deviating from customary practices to interfere with construction of a runway at O'Hare airport or the south suburban airport. The FAA can request a review by the federal Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that the State has followed its customary practices. The bill also prohibits the FAA from approving the O'Hare runway design plan unless FAA determines that the construction and the operations at the airport will include best management practices to mitigate emissions. In sum, the National Aviation Capacity Expansion Act of 2002 ensures that the uniqure provisions of Illinois law will not stand in the way of the O'Hare redesign project, while at the same time, O'Hare will not have unfair advantage in competing for scare AIP funds; and environmental laws will not be short-circuited.

Mr. OBERSTAR. I thank the gentleman for that addition. That has been our understanding on our side on a bipartisan basis, that the Governor is in support. Mr. Speaker, it is important to point out that cities were the first to champion airports; States came along much later.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) for his request and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) for yielding that additional time to me. Mr. Speaker, in the early years of aviation, with cities that first built airports, only later did States come. As late as 1958, only seven States provided financial assistance and support for airport construction. It was in the 1940s, long before the State of Illinois ever got into the business of supporting airports, that the Chicago City Council looked into the crystal ball and saw that the future was aviation and had the foresight to buy orchard fields and an additional 7,000 acres to build O'Hare. On the matter of constitutionality, I just want to point out, and I was concerned about this, we inquired with the John Paul Stephens professor of law at Northwestern University, Professor Thomas Merrill, to get his opinion on the constitutionality. His view is that ``the Illinois Aeronautics Act was not protected by the Tenth Amendment. The Illinois Aeronautics Act is unique. Regulation aviation capacity cannot be deemed a core or traditional State function that might be protected by the Tenth Amendment. This legislation does not require the State of Illinois to proactively regulate its citizens, it merely prohibits the State of Illinois from interfering with the city of Chicago's ability to expand capacity at O'Hare.'' Mr. Speaker, I think that clearly this legislation is within the authority of the Congress. It is in the public interest. It is necessary to resolve a deadlock between the State of Illinois and the City of Chicago. It was requested by the State of Illinois. It was sought by the City of Chicago, which has the primary responsibility for airport construction, and has nurtured O'Hare Airport into the world's premier facility that it is and represents today. We are talking here not just about this airport, but we are talking about service to the entire Nation, facilitating air service to smaller communities as well as large communities, and service to the world.

Mr. OBERSTAR

Mr. OBERSTAR. Is the gentleman offering under a technical change the same amendment that he offered apparently in error earlier?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I demand a separate vote on the so-called DeFazio amendment.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's kind remarks. He said that previously. It was a very balanced debate and one that stuck to the issues, and in the interest of sticking to the issues, I just want to point out further that while the underlying bill had a 2-year program, stop, take stock before going ahead, the bill, as now constructed, does not have that stop, take stock provision. That is my concern.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I take this time simply to state the case of the status of this legislation. With passage of the first amendment, the DeFazio, et al. amendment, the House has voted to make all 70,000-plus commercial airline pilots eligible immediately to be armed and trained to carry guns in the flight deck. That is fine. I am just stating the case of where we are. The House has voted to delete the requirement for a 2-year pilot program, a test program, after which the plan was to stop, take stock and decide what issues needed to be addressed, what problems need to be fixed, and then to proceed with a permanent program if the Transportation Security Administration decided to do so. Under this legislation, even if the initial deployment demonstrates that there are safety problems, even if we learn in the initial going in a year or so in this initiative that there are safety problems or the program is ineffective in preventing a skyjacking, or if doors are installed to make the flight deck secure, as will happen next summer, according to the current schedule, this program is permanent. There is no stop, take stock, and decide whether to go permanently with it. At a cost of $8,000 of training per pilot per year, the cost is in excess of $500 million a year. The Transportation Security Administration will have to start training within 2 months of enactment of the legislation. Mr. Chairman, in the end, the current status of this bill violates, in my opinion and in reality, the agreement that we worked out on a bipartisan basis to bring to the floor measured, responsible, stop, take stock, before you go ahead, assess the effect of this program in a 2-year initiative and then decide whether to go ahead on a permanent basis. That is now gone. I can no longer support the legislation in this form, and I urge a no vote on passage.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, on the matter of the cap and the last point the gentleman made, the point of the bill, of doing a 2-year test and then evaluating, was to work out some of the very concerns the gentleman expressed. The gentleman is quite right, that not all pilots that we know are qualified to handle a gun. That is why there is the training requirement in the legislation, to prepare and hopefully to weed out people who really do not qualify. The idea of undertaking this limited program to test out these ideas and to ascertain the effects of a misfired gun in the cockpit that might send a bullet through the autopilot or through the flight deck computer are necessary preconditions. Then we stop, take stock, and the Secretary or the under secretary could make the determination to open it up to all pilots. But I think this is a matter of walking before we run.

Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?